A Different Look at Genesis

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Reply to Junabet’s Post 56 Your words: “So what do you suggest I should have told my Sunday School kids:


I would hope it would begin as something like this: Class, we know God’s word is truth. Here are a few examples: Ps. 119:160 – “Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.”

John 17:17 – “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”

2 Tim. 2:15 – “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” ( the word of truth here is of course, the OT accounts) So class, seeing as how God’s word is truth, if we seem to see a theological difference in the bible, then the problem is one of our own lack of understanding and not one of biblical error. Sure there may be minor translational misunderstandings but God has always protected the integrity of the major doctrinal truths He wanted us to know.

If your class is taught anything less then you are doing them a major spiritual disservice which you and all of us (in one way or another) will be accountable for.



Your words: “Did God create plants first and then human beings (Gen 1:11/Gen 1: 27) or did He create people first and then plants (Gen 2.4-9)?”


I will repeat my answer from my previous post. There is NO “different texts giving different orders of creation” in Gen. 1-2. Only those who lack faith in His word would say something like that. All it really takes to understand this “supposed” difference is faith and common sense. It’s possible I guess, you might be speaking of Gen. 2:4 where God is just confirming that He created the plants BEFORE they were IN the earth. One strike against evolution! Or perhaps it is Gen. 2:19 that is confusing you where God is just reminding us that out of GROUND He formed every beast of the field and fowl of the air. HMM, not primordial ooze, strike 2 for evolution! So of all of His creations before man, He is just bringing them to Adam to name. No puzzle, no conflicting order, you see class, you just need to apply some common sense!


Your words: “Did Noah bring “two of each living creature” on the ark (Gen 7:15), or did he bring “seven pairs[b] of every clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of the unclean animals, a male and its mate; 3 along with seven pairs[c] of the flying birds, male and female” (Gen 7:2)?”

Class, some people may try to confuse you by asking silly questions like the one noted above, but what does common sense tell you? There is no difference between the two verses they just simply went into the ark by pairs, a male and female, either as a single pair or as seven pairs, one pair right after the other.


Your words: “Did God tell David to take a census of Israel (2 Samuel 24:1), or was it Satan (I Chronicles 21:2)?

Class, they may even come at you with odd questions like the one above as if they’re seeking to destroy the validity of the bible. They see apparent conflicts where there are none. When we read and understand God’s word, the answer to this puzzler is really quite simple. In 2 Samuel 24:1 we are told that God provoked DAVID to “go number the people”. How did God do this provoking? He used Satan to tempt David as is told in 1 Chron. 21:1. Why did God do it this way? To give cause for judging Israel. In either case David knew he had sinned by taking the census and repented in 2 Sam. 24:10 and 1 Chron. 21:8. Who are we to know and understand the mind of God?


Your words: “What’s the outcome of that census? Were there 800,000 men trained for war in Israel and 500,000 in Judah (2 Samuel 24:9) or 1,100,000 men trained for war in Israel and 470,000 in Judah? (I Chronicles 21:5) … etc. etc.”

Class, in some cases there are apparent discrepancies but before we give birth to doubt we should use the tools we have to try and see where these differences may come from. If you were to use your computer and enter in 2 Sam. 24:9 and 1 Chron. 21:5 you would see that other people have noticed this apparent discrepancy as well. Just read some of the results of your search and when you find one that you can accept, just accept it and move on. It’s really not that hard.


Your words: “However, if you reject their allegorical interpretations altogether, that leaves me with the question I entered this thread with: how come then, that you believe – well, I suppose you believe - that God created everything out of nothing, which is an Augustinian doctrine based on a highly allegorical reading of Genesis.”

I see nothing allegorical about it, it seems quite literal to me.
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Junabet, Your words: "But I hope you had a nice holiday. Just out of interest: does the Kentucky Ark have room for 7 pairs of elephants (Gen. 7:2) etc. or just one pair (Gen. 7:15)"

I guess it depends if they were unclean or not but there would have been room for seven pairs of young elephants.

Your words: "Why link an article to explain what you believe, when you don’t believe what the article says?"

Because I believe in what the majority of the article said, not necessarily every last detail.

Your words: "It’s not that I am thrashing the validity of the Bible, Trekson. I’m trashing the validity of your interpretation of it. Big difference!"

No, there is no difference at all seeing as how practically every author in the bible including Jesus Christ, had the same understanding as mine. You are the one who is "kicking against the pricks"!

Your words: "Seems that to you God is just some kind of potter playing with mud..."

Well, the bible does teach us that God is the "potter" and we are the "clay" (mud)!!!

Your words: "How come so many creationists have such a low opinion on God’s creation, that they hope for it to be destroyed before the oil runs out rather than speaking out against man-made climate change?"

I see you've fallen for that tidbit of misinformation as well! Climate change is a natural occurring event that has repeated itself over the millennia as God designed it. Nobody is "hoping" for it to be destroyed we just acknowledge the literalness of God's prophecy in Revelations but I suppose you think that is allegorical as well! Judgment is coming upon the earth whether you want to accept it or not and yes that will be a man-caused event! The past two or three centuries have had unprecedented warmth from the eras before it. It has been a time of blessing but it began waaaayyyy before fossil fuels had any effect whatsoever.

Your words: "The epitome of hypocrisy is that you still don’t acknowledge that biologists may know more about the natural world than you and I do and that evolution does not rule out a divine creator:"

Sure I'll readily admit that biologists know more about biology then me but they don't know more about biology than God. Why is it so hard for you to believe in the observable facts of creation? The major thing most scientist don't want to accept is the time factor but geologists have admitted time and time again that volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and earthquakes have created geological changes in a matter of days that they thought previously took millions of years to accomplish. The flood answers all there 'time" questions and every continent has a similar tale, they just don't want to accept the natural facts as presented to them.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
kerwin said:
StamJ.

People started dying younger and younger before the flood even took place. Other than Enoch, Methuselah was the oldest and after him his descendants began dying younger and younger. Even Abraham is credited with living quite long though nowhere near his earlier ancestors. Neither of us can actually prove our respective claims at Scripture gives us too small of a sample size. God must not see it as important to give us enough evidence to resolve the issue.
Psalms 148 is not about the flood. It is about praising God and the Psalmist used present tense verbs.
That is not factual just another one of your assertion that you don't back up with any Scripture. Noah live for a total of 950 years. Genesis 9:28. Now we Genesis 11 and see how they just started to decrease after the flood.
I think he's pretty well showing that you have no idea about grammatical rules, and Psalm 148 is not about the flood it is about David recalling The Creation in Genesis. Read verse 5 & 6 of the Psalm and you will see. Better still read before you actually comment on the written word of God.
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
StanJ,

As I stated not enough evidence but even Noah lived less that Methuselah a fair share of his life occurred after the flood. To be exact that would be 350 of his 950 years.
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
StanJ,

There was an a general increase in lifespan until the time Enoch walked with God and after that time there was a decrease. Since there is debate about whether or not Enoch died I choose to go by the age of his son Methuselah. After Methuselah there was a overall down slope though there are bumps where the lifespan of a son would be longer than his fathers. There was a large drop in lifespan after Noah and one speculate it is due to the disappearance of a hypothetical water canopy but one also speculate that it is due the crossbreeding between the daughters of men and the sons of God. Scripture literally speaks of such crossbreeding but not of a water canopy.

In Psalms 148:4 it is the nominative present tense "praise" that is used. It think "praise" changes to imperative future tense in verse 5 though it is is speaking of those God created in the past. In addition it claims God established them forever; which argues that such a canopy would exist to this day.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
kerwin said:
StanJ,
As I stated not enough evidence but even Noah lived less that Methuselah a fair share of his life occurred after the flood. To be exact that would be 350 of his 950 years.
Plenty of evidence if you accept the Bible over science which is all theoretical in any event. Not everybody today live the same life span there are many people who died in their fifties and many people who died in their nineties. No different in the Old Testament they just lived longer, which is the point.
Even at 500 years old Noah was still strong enough to build the ark and take a hundred years to do so.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
kerwin said:
StanJ,
There was an a general increase in lifespan until the time Enoch walked with God and after that time there was a decrease. Since there is debate about whether or not Enoch died I choose to go by the age of his son Methuselah. After Methuselah there was a overall down slope though there are bumps where the lifespan of a son would be longer than his fathers. There was a large drop in lifespan after Noah and one speculate it is due to the disappearance of a hypothetical water canopy but one also speculate that it is due the crossbreeding between the daughters of men and the sons of God. Scripture literally speaks of such crossbreeding but not of a water canopy.

In Psalms 148:4 it is the nominative present tense "praise" that is used. It think "praise" changes to imperative future tense in verse 5 though it is is speaking of those God created in the past. In addition it claims God established them forever; which argues that such a canopy would exist to this day.
The issue here is not how long certain people lived the issue is that mankind generally lived much longer before the flood and then after the flood that longevity diminished over time to the point or they were barely living 50 years. Please try to stay on point and not deflect to all these rabbit trails
God did create the universe forever and the fact that certain things change within the universe is not important. Obviously you don't understand the context of Psalm 148 and I'm not going to bother trying to continue to explain it to you when you've already made up your mind about what you reading. Bottom line, you're wrong
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
Stan J,

Plenty of evidence if you accept the Bible over science which is all theoretical in any event.

The scientific method is a method of gaining knowledge. It can and should be applied to Scripture.

Scientific knowledge is no different than theology with the exception that it is more standardized. For example a group of a few members decided that Pluto was not a planet and the rest followed along. That group sits in the seat of the pope in their particular field of Science.

I can make a case that modern humanity is the descendants of the mating of the sons of Seth with the daughters of Cain because like Cain we are cut off from God. It is weak because I cannot say if Cain was cut off in the same way that we are. In short it is a gray area of Scripture.

In the case of Noah and his descendants you have a small gene pool that may well have corrupted as time went on and so led to shorter lifespans. In addition there is a certain amount of symbolization as the peek occurred when Enoch walked with God and was not.
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
Stan J,

I see you have difficulties with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 or Psalms 148.

Look up and you will see clouds on top of the sky even though they are blocking off the Sun. moon, and stars which are in the skies.

FYI: Noctilucent clouds are the highest clouds and they are interesting to read about.

I should really go to another conversation since this one is not going much of anywhere.

Thank you fort he conversation.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
kerwin said:
The scientific method is a method of gaining knowledge. It can and should be applied to Scripture.

Scientific knowledge is no different than theology with the exception that it is more standardized. For example a group of a few members decided that Pluto was not a planet and the rest followed along. That group sits in the seat of the pope in their particular field of Science.

I can make a case that modern humanity is the descendants of the mating of the sons of Seth with the daughters of Cain because like Cain we are cut off from God. It is weak because I cannot say if Cain was cut off in the same way that we are. In short it is a gray area of Scripture.

In the case of Noah and his descendants you have a small gene pool that may well have corrupted as time went on and so led to shorter lifespans. In addition there is a certain amount of symbolization as the peek occurred when Enoch walked with God and was not.
Wrong, science should never be used to interpret the Bible. That is where you personally go wrong.

When theories are considered facts then there's definitely something wrong with science.

It may be great to you seeing as though you want to believe only what you can understand or see but because the Bible is meant to be read with faith and have a personal relationship with Jesus and the Holy Spirit it becomes problematic for those who don't have those prerequisites for doing so.

So now you're a genetics expert? My observation is that you just look for reasons for the Bible not to be true and accurate and as such you will always find what you want to find. Of course it'll always be wrong but you'll always be able to find something.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
kerwin said:
I see you have difficulties with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 or Psalms 148.

Look up and you will see clouds on top of the sky even though they are blocking off the Sun. moon, and stars which are in the skies.

FYI: Noctilucent clouds are the highest clouds and they are interesting to read about.

I should really go to another conversation since this one is not going much of anywhere.

Thank you fort he conversation.
I have no problem with reading the Bible in whatever since it is conveyed whether literal or metaphorical or hyperbolic. The problem arises when people don't know how to read within the context it is being conveyed.

Yes and to have sky full of clouds, you have to have evaporation and evaporation was not in effect until after the canopy of water was emptied for the flood and the sun had direct access to the waters of the world in order to cause evaporation and cloud condensation. That's pretty basic science which I'm surprised you don't seem to understand given your propensity for quoting science.

Feel free to go to any conversation you feel like, I have no problem letting this one go.
 

Dcopymope

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2016
2,650
800
113
36
Motor City
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
StanJ said:
I have no problem with reading the Bible in whatever since it is conveyed whether literal or metaphorical or hyperbolic. The problem arises when people don't know how to read within the context it is being conveyed.

Yes and to have sky full of clouds, you have to have evaporation and evaporation was not in effect until after the canopy of water was emptied for the flood and the sun had direct access to the waters of the world in order to cause evaporation and cloud condensation. That's pretty basic science which I'm surprised you don't seem to understand given your propensity for quoting science.

Feel free to go to any conversation you feel like, I have no problem letting this one go.
Even if we are to assume that evaporation did occur, that water vapor still won't condense because of the stability of the atmosphere itself, or the likelihood that there was no temperature lapse rate nor any product that would even lift that parcel of air containing the water vapor to the point of saturation. There has to be some sort of upward vertical velocity for any type of cloud activity to occur and thicken to a certain point for precipitation to even be possible.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Dcopymope said:
Even if we are to assume that evaporation did occur, that water vapor still won't condense because of the stability of the atmosphere itself, or the likelihood that there was no temperature lapse rate nor any product that would even lift that parcel of air containing the water vapor to the point of saturation. There has to be some sort of upward vertical velocity for any type of cloud activity to occur and thicken to a certain point for precipitation to even be possible.
Good point, and one that I would have made, if I knew this! Thanks.
 

Dcopymope

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2016
2,650
800
113
36
Motor City
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
StanJ said:
Good point, and one that I would have made, if I knew this! Thanks.
No problem, this is the point I was trying to make in one my previous replies about the need for Upper level divergence, lower level convergence, and general instability to occur in order for clouds to even be a factor before the flood. There obviously was none of this since it didn't rain.
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
Trekson said:
Reply to Junabet’s Post 56 Your words: “So what do you suggest I should have told my Sunday School kids:


I would hope it would begin as something like this: Class, we know God’s word is truth. Here are a few examples: Ps. 119:160 – “Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.”

John 17:17 – “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”

2 Tim. 2:15 – “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” ( the word of truth here is of course, the OT accounts) So class, seeing as how God’s word is truth, if we seem to see a theological difference in the bible, then the problem is one of our own lack of understanding and not one of biblical error. Sure there may be minor translational misunderstandings but God has always protected the integrity of the major doctrinal truths He wanted us to know.

If your class is taught anything less then you are doing them a major spiritual disservice which you and all of us (in one way or another) will be accountable for.
Boy Trekson, no offense and our different understanding of “truth” aside:
That’s not the way to catch a 7 year old’s attention! Is that what they put you through in Sunday-school? I dare say my Bible lessons were more fun than that and I do hope they helped to instill a basic love and trust in God.


Your words: “Did God create plants first and then human beings (Gen 1:11/Gen 1: 27) or did He create people first and then plants (Gen 2.4-9)?”


I will repeat my answer from my previous post. There is NO “different texts giving different orders of creation” in Gen. 1-2. Only those who lack faith in His word would say something like that. All it really takes to understand this “supposed” difference is faith and common sense. It’s possible I guess, you might be speaking of Gen. 2:4 where God is just confirming that He created the plants BEFORE they were IN the earth. One strike against evolution! Or perhaps it is Gen. 2:19 that is confusing you where God is just reminding us that out of GROUND He formed every beast of the field and fowl of the air. HMM, not primordial ooze, strike 2 for evolution! So of all of His creations before man, He is just bringing them to Adam to name. No puzzle, no conflicting order, you see class, you just need to apply some common sense!


Your words: “Did Noah bring “two of each living creature” on the ark (Gen 7:15), or did he bring “seven pairs[b] of every clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of the unclean animals, a male and its mate; 3 along with seven pairs[c] of the flying birds, male and female” (Gen 7:2)?”

Class, some people may try to confuse you by asking silly questions like the one noted above, but what does common sense tell you? There is no difference between the two verses they just simply went into the ark by pairs, a male and female, either as a single pair or as seven pairs, one pair right after the other.
No, Christians with enough interest in the Bible to actually study it with the best reason available in their/our day and age said/say something like that. That we have two creation stories rather than just one is a widely accepted view not just among ‘liberals’ but also among ‘conservatives’ such as N.T. Wright. And most Christians I know aren’t so insecure in their faith in God to be troubled in the slightest by this.
So here’s how most Christians outside of the US see Genesis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bKa92eLkQM&list=PLGNrUpefPmjG11-EMsU7sqJCjztJ6NZma&index=4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BP1PpDyDCw&index=10&list=PLGNrUpefPmjG11-EMsU7sqJCjztJ6NZma

Your words: “Did God tell David to take a census of Israel (2 Samuel 24:1), or was it Satan (I Chronicles 21:2)?

Class, they may even come at you with odd questions like the one above as if they’re seeking to destroy the validity of the bible. They see apparent conflicts where there are none. When we read and understand God’s word, the answer to this puzzler is really quite simple. In 2 Samuel 24:1 we are told that God provoked DAVID to “go number the people”. How did God do this provoking? He used Satan to tempt David as is told in 1 Chron. 21:1. Why did God do it this way? To give cause for judging Israel. In either case David knew he had sinned by taking the census and repented in 2 Sam. 24:10 and 1 Chron. 21:8. Who are we to know and understand the mind of God?


Your words: “What’s the outcome of that census? Were there 800,000 men trained for war in Israel and 500,000 in Judah (2 Samuel 24:9) or 1,100,000 men trained for war in Israel and 470,000 in Judah? (I Chronicles 21:5) … etc. etc.”

Class, in some cases there are apparent discrepancies but before we give birth to doubt we should use the tools we have to try and see where these differences may come from. If you were to use your computer and enter in 2 Sam. 24:9 and 1 Chron. 21:5 you would see that other people have noticed this apparent discrepancy as well. Just read some of the results of your search and when you find one that you can accept, just accept it and move on. It’s really not that hard.

No, it is not that hard to bury your head in the sand and twist scripture beyond recognition to make it fit your doctrine about it rather than letting your doctrine about it be informed by scripture. Being blessed with morbid humor my all-time favourite ‘inerrantist’ excuse is that surely Judas first hanged himself and then his body fell down and his guts split open.
So no, Trekson: rather than feeding them with wild unscriptural fabrications, I shall tell my Sunday-school kids that apparently sometimes Biblical authors just remembered things differently.

Your words: “However, if you reject their allegorical interpretations altogether, that leaves me with the question I entered this thread with: how come then, that you believe – well, I suppose you believe - that God created everything out of nothing, which is an Augustinian doctrine based on a highly allegorical reading of Genesis.”

I see nothing allegorical about it, it seems quite literal to me.
Sorry Trekson, but it seems to me you that you see nothing allegorical in it, because you’ve never actually read Augustine. Otherwise you would not have said that eternity is just never ending time. Augustine thinks eternity is the total absence of time. And according to Augustine God created everything simultaneously. Would you agree with that?
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
Trekson said:
Junabet, Your words: "But I hope you had a nice holiday. Just out of interest: does the Kentucky Ark have room for 7 pairs of elephants (Gen. 7:2) etc. or just one pair (Gen. 7:15)"

I guess it depends if they were unclean or not but there would have been room for seven pairs of young elephants.
Well, that raises the question how Noah could have known which animal was clean and which was unclean. Even if he had already had the law of Moses, as far as I remember even that law doesn’t make specifications about elephants, polar bears, gorillas, Komodo dragons … . Maybe that’s why Noah wanted to play it safe and only brought one pair of each as Gen 7:15 tells us. But even with only one pair of each the largest zoos would get into trouble; there are millions of species on this earth. That must have been a mightily big boat! Ironically the ‘replica’ in Kentucky only takes 7000 and can’t even swim!

In my church Sunday school kids are about 7-10 years old. Kids at that age are mostly capable of telling fact from fiction without a grown-up pointing out the difference. And by no means did any of my Sunday-school kids look down on fiction: They just loved the Noah-Story and I hope it infused them with the trust and hope in God that I think this story means to convey.

Your words: "It’s not that I am thrashing the validity of the Bible, Trekson. I’m trashing the validity of your interpretation of it. Big difference!"

No, there is no difference at all seeing as how practically every author in the bible including Jesus Christ, had the same understanding as mine. You are the one who is "kicking against the pricks"!
So what book of the Bible do you think Jesus wrote? And is there one that promotes the kind of hubris you are displaying here? Even Paul himself admitted not to know everything (1 Cor. 13:12). He also advises never to be wise in your own sight (Romans 12:16).

Your words: "How come so many creationists have such a low opinion on God’s creation, that they hope for it to be destroyed before the oil runs out rather than speaking out against man-made climate change?"

I see you've fallen for that tidbit of misinformation as well! Climate change is a natural occurring event that has repeated itself over the millennia as God designed it. Nobody is "hoping" for it to be destroyed we just acknowledge the literalness of God's prophecy in Revelations but I suppose you think that is allegorical as well! Judgment is coming upon the earth whether you want to accept it or not and yes that will be a man-caused event! The past two or three centuries have had unprecedented warmth from the eras before it. It has been a time of blessing but it began waaaayyyy before fossil fuels had any effect whatsoever.

Your words: "The epitome of hypocrisy is that you still don’t acknowledge that biologists may know more about the natural world than you and I do and that evolution does not rule out a divine creator:"

Sure I'll readily admit that biologists know more about biology then me but they don't know more about biology than God. Why is it so hard for you to believe in the observable facts of creation? The major thing most scientist don't want to accept is the time factor but geologists have admitted time and time again that volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and earthquakes have created geological changes in a matter of days that they thought previously took millions of years to accomplish. The flood answers all there 'time" questions and every continent has a similar tale, they just don't want to accept the natural facts as presented to them.

Well, Trekson, I suppose our eschatological views are as different from each other as our notions of ‘observable facts of creation’ are. I acknowledge that if the Lord did not know the time or the hour, nor can I know: it might be tomorrow, it might be in 10 000 years. Whenever it will be, until that day we are called to good stewardship. And there’s a beautiful quote about good stewardship ascribed to Martin Luther: "Even if I knew that the world were to collapse tomorrow, I would still plant my apple tree today"
I haven’t got the faintest clue what exactly drives so many evangelical fundamentalists to deny the scientific consensus about man-made climate change – by no means can I see the Bible excluding the possibility that humans make a mess of things and the Bible certainly does not encourage Christians to take part in making a mess. It seems you guys have been brainwashed well and proper by party politics and greedy corporate industries that are just out for short-term profit. These industries don’t want you to care when they destroy God’s beautiful creation, and they don’t want you to care how your children and grandchildren and grand-grandchildren will survive with no resources left, nor do they want you to care for our fellow-men in poorer parts of the world, who are already suffering under man-made climate change. All that these big industries want you to care about is driving big cars and going shopping.
But remember: No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” (Mt. 6:24)
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
Dcopymote,

I have no idea what you mean by a stable atmosphere but it is irrelevant as there is a reason clouds only form so high in the atmosphere.
 

Dcopymope

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2016
2,650
800
113
36
Motor City
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
kerwin said:
Dcopymote,

I have no idea what you mean by a stable atmosphere but it is irrelevant as there is a reason clouds only form so high in the atmosphere.
Well that shows how much you know about meteorology, which is very little.